Google Ads

Hey there! We're an open community that values free speech and free thinking on all topics. If that sounds like you, then login or register. It's free and easy. You can also connect with your FaceBook account. Or you can just comment on anything you find of interest, but your comments will then have to wait for moderation before they show.

Nope. That don't make any sense at all. Sure, Jesus is the Word and the Word is metaphorically likened to milk, but Jesus was not "seethed" (crucified) in Mary's "milk" (Word). So the interpretation fails. But it does show what happens if folks begin to think that every jot and tittle of the Bible is the mystical magical "Word of God" filled with "secret meanings." It makes them think that they must find the "secret divine meaning" of otherwise ordinary comments. Case in point: the prohibition against seething the kid in its mother's milk was probably just another law to separate the Jews from the pagans who did that.

This also shows how faulty interpretations can have huge economic consequences. Can you imagine what a bother it is to have two sets of utensils - one for dairy and one for meat? It's a major hassle. And it all comes from what? A gross misinterpretation of one little verse! How pathetic to run your life on such superstitions!

Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.

Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

Nope. That don't make any sense at all. Sure, Jesus is the Word and the Word is metaphorically likened to milk, but Jesus was not "seethed" (crucified) in Mary's "milk" (Word). So the interpretation fails. But it does show what happens if folks begin to think that every jot and tittle of the Bible is the mystical magical "Word of God" filled with "secret meanings." It makes them think that they must find the "secret divine meaning" of otherwise ordinary comments. Case in point: the prohibition against seething the kid in its mother's milk was probably just another law to separate the Jews from the pagans who did that.

This also shows how faulty interpretations can have huge economic consequences. Can you imagine what a bother it is to have two sets of utensils - one for dairy and one for meat? It's a major hassle. And it all comes from what? A gross misinterpretation of one little verse! How pathetic to run your life on such superstitions!

Figured you'd think like that, ram, and was hoping some lurkers would see it differently. More to the story, as usual, but reckon you've already heard more than you wanted to think about... ha.

"Seethe"
H1310 - Hebrew 'bashal'

1) to boil, cook, bake, roast, ripen, grow ripe

The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring into the house of the LORD thy God. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk. Exodus 23:19

The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the LORD thy God. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk. Ex 34:26

More to the story IMO because of the connection to the Firstfruits.
15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

In the OT they didn't know how scripture would be spoken of as MILK. Both Paul and Peter spoke of the "Milk of the Word" - 1Cor3:2, 1Pet2:2. (In jest, perhaps: Father's Milk?)

In the OT it was Isaiah who planted a clue about this: "Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk and drawn from the breasts". Isa28:9

So is having a cheeseburger really that important?

Dux allows: "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out the matter". Pr25:2

Figured you'd think like that, ram, and was hoping some lurkers would see it differently. More to the story, as usual, but reckon you've already heard more than you wanted to think about... ha.

"Seethe"
H1310 - Hebrew 'bashal'

1) to boil, cook, bake, roast, ripen, grow ripe

The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring into the house of the LORD thy God. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk. Exodus 23:19

The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the LORD thy God. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk. Ex 34:26

More to the story IMO because of the connection to the Firstfruits.
15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

In the OT they didn't know how scripture would be spoken of as MILK. Both Paul and Peter spoke of the "Milk of the Word" - 1Cor3:2, 1Pet2:2. (In jest, perhaps: Father's Milk?)

In the OT it was Isaiah who planted a clue about this: "Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk and drawn from the breasts". Isa28:9

So is having a cheeseburger really that important?

The connection with "Firstfruits" strengthens your case. But what about my specific comment? I wrote: "Sure, Jesus is the Word and the Word is metaphorically likened to milk, but Jesus was not "seethed" (crucified) in Mary's "milk" (Word). So the interpretation fails." Do you have an answer for me?

And yes, cheeseburgers really are that important!

Don't you think that the Jewish tradition is both stupid and unbiblical? Cheeseburgers have nothing to do with seething a kid in its mother's milk. They made up all those dietary restrictions for no good reason and called it "religion." I'd think you'd think that was pretty stupid.

Great chatting!

Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.

Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

Am not limited to the "letter of the Law", and see Father's Milk as being non gender specific. The 'cheeseburger' reference is to the reports I've heard that you can't buy one in Tel Aviv because of that Law separating meat from dairy.. (maybe you hadn't heard of that?)
So, Yes, I regard that dietary Law as ignorant.. like their refusal to accept the sacrifice of Jesus as fulfillment of their own scriptures! Understandable because Jesus apparently never revealed to them that he'd been born in Bethlehem. :-)

Last edited by duxrow; 06-29-2011 at 07:23 AM.

Dux allows: "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out the matter". Pr25:2

Am not limited to the "letter of the Law", and see Father's Milk as being non gender specific. The 'cheeseburger' reference is to the reports I've heard that you can't buy one in Tel Aviv because of that Law separating meat from dairy.. (maybe you hadn't heard of that?)
So, Yes, I regard that dietary Law as ignorant.. like their refusal to accept the sacrifice of Jesus as fulfillment of their own scriptures! Understandable because Jesus apparently never revealed to them that he'd been born in Bethlehem. :-)

Oh yes, I've heard of that. It's exactly what I thought you meant by your cheeseburger reference (except the part about Tel Aviv - I don't know anything about that).

But I still don't understand how you connect the command "Don't seethe a kid in it's mother's milk" to the crucifixion. The image seems totally confused. Obviously, the kid would have to represent Christ, but you say that the milk also represents Christ as the Word. So now we have the interpretation running something like "Do not seethe (crucify) a kid (Christ) in its mother's (Mary's) milk (Word/Christ)." I don't think that actually makes any sense. Did I miss something?

As for Bethlehem, the Bible does not say that Christ withheld knowledge of his birthplace. It only says that there was a dispute amongst some Jews about it.

John 7:40 Many of the people therefore, when they heard this saying, said, Of a truth this is the Prophet. 41 Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee? 42 Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was? 43 So there was a division among the people because of him.

It seems like you are entirely fascinated with finding highly speculative and unprovable things "hidden" in the Bible. You are and I are like opposites in this regard. I spent fifteen years searching for the things that can be solidly established on a foundation of many witnesses. I have always had a strong distaste for speculation about the Bible because folks have been making up crap for 2000 years and a lot of it is pretty stinky, and it confuses everyone and encourages them to do the same.

Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.

Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?